Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 March 7

= March 7 =

Aboriginal languages in Northern Ontario?
Which aboriginal language(s) would be used the most in the Cochrane, Ontario area?

I think it's Moose Cree language...

--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks from Cree language that it might be Moose Cree, but it's close to the border with Ojibwe. Not sure how much the Cree map reflects current vs. historical ranges. Definitely Algonquian, though. (It's Ojibwe around Lake Abitibi on the Quebec border west of La Sarre.) Note also that Ojibwe has similar internal diversity as Cree, and that the borders between dialects of either may be ill defined, which explains the straight lines on the Cree map. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The predominant aboriginal language of the Cochrane District is Cree: . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at my GIS coverage, it says extreme southern and extreme western areas of Cochrane District are Anishinaabemowin (Algonquin, Oji-cree or Ojibway), while all other areas are Cree. CJLippert (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "works"
What does it mean in the following sentence? "The people love empirical things because none of them are harmful; but the physicians are ashamed because great works prefer the villages." --Omidinist (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote continues: "...where the marketplaces resound in their praises of empirical remedies." The passage refers to medicinal lore and seems to be taken from Science and the Secrets of Nature by William Eamon. It looks like the author of the quote, the Dominican Friar Nicholas of Poland means God's great works or (God's deepest secrets) which prefer and reveal themselves to the village with its appreciation for the empirical as opposed to "learned physicians" who rely on their reasoning in their ivory towers. In one of the next sentences in the paragraph you quoted, Eamon interprets: "The secrets of nature are known empirically, not by philosophy." ---Sluzzelin talk  08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sluzzelin. Now I can find it in many places of the Bible, like in Psalms. --Omidinist (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

languages : how to say the F word in German, French, Japanese, Spanish, and Italian
how to say the f word in german, french and japanese,and spanish and italien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Assuming you mean "fuck", see the page on F word and please clarify if you mean another word) Wiktionary has all sorts of translations of several meanings in all sorts of languages including the ones you are asking about. Note that neither German, nor French, nor Spanish, nor Italian use the corresponding vulgar verb for "having sexual intercourse" as an interjection the way English does. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on Japanese, but I can tell you that the three insults I know are roughly chikksho- (animal), bakayaro/baka (idiot), nanda kore (what's this). --Kjoonlee 09:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these comes close to the offensiveness of 'Fuck', though. Japan doesn't really have any very offensive swears. Phileas (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Japanese has no literal equivalent. While one can be quite rude in Japanese, the language does not rely on scatalogical and religious shock-words like European languages do. Paul Davidson (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the other languages, but the vulgar verb for intercourse is "ficken" in German and "chiavare" in Italian. The standard interjection (as in "Fuck! I spilled my coffee!" or "what a load of fucking nonsense") is "Scheisse" or "Scheiss" in German (literally "shit") and "cazzo" in Italian (literally "dick"). I think it's quite interesting how different languages use very different vulgar words as a standard interjection - it is, of course, original research and blind guessing, but I think it's possible to deduce something about a language's culture from the standard vulgar interjection (in a very catholic country like Italy, the concept of a penis is the largest possible taboo, while in a culture based on orderliness and cleanliness like in Germany, the most vulgar thing imaginable is a pile of shit...and it's quite funny to see that the Scandinavian languages use "faen" which does not mean anything but is just a generic word that is considered offensive) -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maledicta Press regularly publishes insights on this topic. (I remembered it from an interview with the publisher, Reinhold Aman, Here's the interview, in German unfortunately).
 * I've seen the taboo zones being divided into "religious", "sexual", and "excremental" (Pinker, for example), but Aman distinguishes between insulting the family, blasphemy, and violations of prudish sensitivities (including sexual intercourse, body parts, and excrement). Blasphemy is mainly attributed to Catholic cultures ("from Bavaria to Brazil"), insulting the family is more popular in Asia, Africa, and Oceania, while Americans are mentioned as the example par excellence of prudish culture.
 * More tidbits: Some indigenous cultures are extremely sensitive, and will even take offense from mentioning a dead relative, or from reference to the fact that one sleeps with one's own spouse. Then there are cultures allowing for curses such as "I fuck your mother's dead soul" (Serbian) on the other end of the spectrum. Aman says the Hungarians are among the "best" swearers, combining blasphemy and excrement in the same curse. But Kudos also goes to Russian, Arabic, Greek, Bavarian, Italian, and Spanish. The most clever curses are attributed to Yiddish "May you lose all teeth save one, so you can still have a toothache. ---Sluzzelin  talk  10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arabic combines family and sex in the worst expletive (that I know of): "kus ummak", your mother's pussy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note on Ferkelparade's claim about 'Faen' above. It is not just a generic offensive word meaning nothing. The swedish version, 'Fan', means "the devil", which puts it in the same category as virtually all swedish expletives, blasphemic ones. I'm not sure about danish and norwegian, though. They might have borrowed the expletive but not its meaning/Kriko (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Faen' is a short form of 'Fanden', which means the devil in both Danish and Norwegian. --NorwegianBluetalk 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack (or should I say "Faen!"). My Norwegian is rustier than I thought... -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * F*ck off in French: fous le camp. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, if you trust babelfish, which you really shouldn't for complicated phrases like this (assuming you mean "f*ck", not "f*ck you" or "f*ck off" or "f*cking" :
 * German: Bumsen
 * French: baise
 * Japanese: 性交
 * Spanish: cogita
 * Italian: scopata
 * However, I doubt that these are gramaticly correct for the intended meaning, and the grammar will likely fall apart when you use more complicated phrases involving f*ck on babelfish. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, German bumsen does mean "have sex (with)", but it doesn't have nearly the level of vulgarity of fuck. Bumsen is literally "bang" and is about equally vulgar in its sexual connotation as English "bang", though bumsen is probably more common in German than bang is in English. In vulgarity and frequency it probably corresponds most closely to screw. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact translation into Spanish is follar which has the same etymology as fuck however it is only used in Spain, in Chile it is culiar and México it is chingar. This is only in reference to sex, when it comes to an insult, as in fuck you, somthing like andate a la mierda (go to shit) or tú madre (your mother) would be appropriately offensive and used in the same situation.Carritotito (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another exact translation into Spanish is 'joder', which in Spain is used as an interjection, ¡Joder!, as well as in other contexts where fuck might be used in English, see Spanish profanity. --NorwegianBluetalk 17:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might enjoy Quebec French profanity, and if we don't have equivalently good articles for every other major language, we should. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The proper treatment of screws
It has recently come to my attention that of all the languages I have ever had contact with, French is the only one that has a fitting word for screwdriver (tournevis, indicating that screws are actually turned with the thing). In English, screws are driven, in German, they are pulled (Schraubenzieher), in Norwegian dragged (skrutrekker), in Italian even hunted (cacciavite). None of this seems to make any sense (or at least the German does not make any sense, no matter how you look at it...it is of course possible that screwdriver and cacciavite have some subtleties of meaning that escape my non-native speaker's ears). Is there a word for this peculiar phenomenon, other than the overly broad "malapropism"? And has there ever been any linguistic research into the strange verbal abuse screws have to endure the world over? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Drive is fitting...the usual sense now has to do with cars, but it used to mean "force something somewhere", and there is still "pile driver", "line drive", etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In English the "drive" part means "to force someone or something to go somewhere or do something". You drive cattle to forcibly move them. You can drive a nail into wood (you force the nail into the wood). Hence a screwdriver drives a screw into wood. - X201 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am of course aware of that meaning of "to drive"; the source of my puzzlement is the fact that screws by definition are not generically driven in or pulled out (like nails), but always turned - which is not reflected in any word for "screwdiver" except the French. Maybe it is folly to expect words in natural languages to actually correspond to the way their denotat is used, I'm just amazed at how little this is the case in the case of screwdrivers -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Now I read our article screwdriver and am confused even more - apparently, the word "turnscrew" was used before the word "screwdriver" and then fell out of general use, which means there was an appropriate and exact word that indicated the turning motion that was then replaced by a more generic word. Hooray for natural languages and their inconsistencies - some of these days I think it would be better for everyone to completely forget their mother tongue and instead switch to some nice, clean artificial language :P -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your think doubleplusgood, Ferkel. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We still have "turn the screws", but that comes from the torture device, thumbscrew. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul Kay has used the exact example of screwdriver to counter the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. See "Intra-speaker relativity" in Rethinking linguistic relativityedited by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. ISBN 0521448905  ---Sluzzelin  talk  12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that the French term is less fitting than English. Sure, you turn the screw but that's not why we use it.  We use it because it puts screws in place.  Certainly there's a difference between inserting a nail and a screw and that difference is in the turning aspect, but because it's understood already that a screw must be turned to be driven, it's redundant.  In English, if someone came up with a device called a screwturner I'd think they found something that turns the screws around so that you don't have to manually fit it onto the end... or something.  The real question is, why don't say naildriver? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In German, the term "Schraubendreher" (screw turner) seems to replace the non descriptive term "Schraubenzieher" (screw puller). At least in my neck of the woods, which is not that distant from Dr Ferkel´s Munich, the term is found in many hardware shops.
 * Googling for Schraubendreher gets 1.7 Million hits, Schraubenzieher gives a measly 600 Thousand.
 * The German Wikipedia comments on the meaning of Schraubenzieher and notes that "ziehen" was related to "einziehen" or "festziehen", ie. to tighten the screw. A such, the word starts to make sense, but it seems to be an endangered species, anyway.
 * For nostalgic handymen and women there is also an interesting Elizabethan manual entitled The Turning of the Screw. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing it with the Victorian zoological guide The Tame of the Shrew. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 23:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Screws are both turned and driven. The screw will just twirl on top of the wood if you don't apply some directional force to it. You really should be looking for the language that calls a screwdriver a screwdriveturner. Strad (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we've got it wrong with both referants; maybe the screwdriver should be called screwer and the screw called screwable. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, if we're being ORative, maybe we should confine "screw" to the verb, create a new word for the noun "screw", e.g. frimble, then adjust "screwdriver" accordingly. Frimblescrewpush sounds like a plausible word to me.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)And what do all these languages call the mixture of orange juice and vodka? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A waste of good orange juice. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Italian has cacciavite and giravite. "Cacciavite" has nothing to do with hunting. "Cacciare" has at least three separate meanings: to hunt, to chase and to drive in or out. "Giravite", clearly, is equivalent to "tournevis".-Giorgio-151.68.253.29 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation of Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia articles on Zen
I've been wanting to expand and improve English Wikipedia's article on Zen, but finding books on Zen history is difficult. I have several books, but none of them are apparently good for this purpose (all on Zen practice, not Zen history). And I can't really afford books on Zen history from Amazon, right now.

However, I figured that Japanese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia have some good material which could be copied back into English Wikipedia, if translated. I looked, used Google's translator, and they do apparently have some good material.

So, if anybody could translate this Japanese article for me, please:
 * 禅

And please translate this Chinese article for me, please:
 * 禅宗

It would be very helpful. If you don't have a lot of time or you're lazy (like me, but I hope not!), send me a message and I'll tell you which passages are the most important parts that I need translated. Thanks! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For translations of foreign articles to English, try posting a request on Translation. Dforest (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Put through, here: Translation/Zen. Anyone who can do this translation, please help! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just took a look at the translation area there seems to be pretty slow, useless bureaucracy. The directions are confusing, there appear to be several old cases which have been ignored. I put my case in there (I think), but I doubt anybody will respond.

Any good samaritans here, willing to help? If not, I know some off-wiki sites which may be more helpful. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From unknown to certain
I need help creating a scale of certainty. It's in the context of memory and retelling of visual memories. I'm trying to find the more subtle nuances but I can't find the words. It would go something like this: Of course there are going to be problems. For example it is hard to determine if likely is stronger in certainty than probable. Are they perfect synonymes? Does one have more weight than the other? Any help would be appreciated. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * unknown
 * unremembered (?)
 * unsure
 * possible
 * probable
 * likely
 * certain
 * unquestionable

Is this Wikipedia-related? If not, this isn't really the place for your question. If it is Wikipedia-related, creating such a scale of certainty would be original research. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such restriction on questions posted to the reference desks. --LarryMac  | Talk  19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Certain" is much more...um, certain than "likely". For example, if something is "likely" to explode then it might explode, but if it is "certain" it will explode (don't know how that example came to my mind, but there you go). Oops, misread your question. Ok then, "probable" means it could have happened, "likely" means it might have happened, if that helps. Actually, that doesn't make any sense. I confused myself? *sigh* Also, "unremembered" doesn't belong there at all. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that probable and likely are more or less the same concept (specifically, anything greater than 50% chance, if you want to get mathematical). Also ... unremembered is probably better stated as not remembered or, better yet, forgotten.  That is, you had the knowledge/memory at one time, but subsequently lost it (forgot it) ... as opposed to you never had the knowledge/memory at all (unknown).   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm not convinced about some of the distinctions in the proposed list. How can certain and unquestionable be set apart, I wonder? But then, unquestionable does have more of a rhetorical tang of conviction about it, given the everyday overuse of certain. As for probable, it has different senses in historical and philosophical use than in everyday use. When David Hume used the term, as he did very frequently, there is often something of provable about it. The two words are cognate, both come from Latin probare ("to prove"; but that's problematic also!).
 * In fact, the force of several of these adjectives might vary depending on what they are applied to, and in which contexts.
 * Some of the listed terms can themselves be graded by qualifications. Take certainty (as a noun for convenience):
 * Apodeictic [apodictic] certainty is certainty that is warranted by the surest proof, which is called demonstrative proof (like "demonstrating" an incontrovertible truth in mathematics, such as "all three-angled figures have three sides"). We could also speak of demonstrative certainty.
 * Moral certainty is a lower grade of certainty; the term is not much used these days, and people are a bit uncertain about it. See this from OED, "Moral, a." (my emphasis):
 * "11. Used to designate that kind of probable evidence that rests on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of the character of particular individuals or classes of men; often in looser use, applied to all evidence which is merely probable and not demonstrative. moral certainty: a practical certainty resulting from moral evidence; a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; also, something which is morally certain. [...]"
 * That's a mixed bag! And the definition given at "certainty" is really wayward, and not secured by the examples there:
 * "morally certain: so sure that one is morally justified in acting upon the conviction. 1645 Earl Glamorgan Let. 28 Nov. in Carte MSS., I am morally certain a total assent from the Nuncio shall be declared to the propositions for peace. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. (1871) II. iv. vii. 148 Besides one is not sure, only morally-certain."
 * Practical certainty is another possible gradation, as we see in OED as cited above.
 * Indubitable needs to be added to the list, in the techical and Cartesian sense not possible to be doubted. That's pretty strong, as certainties go. Strictly different from unquestionable, I'd say. But that's tricky.
 * Much more could be said about the other terms. Possible is a bit of a worry philosophically, to say the least. It would need to be interpreted as epistemically possible, for a start. Plausible should be added to the list, too. So should known, because what is known is both believed and true (usually with further conditions added) – but then, one can know something but the strength of the belief element in this might vary, on some accounts of the nature of belief. Context of use of these terms becomes relevant here too.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an amazing answer! Thank you very much. If anyone has any more words to add I'm interested. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's also "factual". At first glance, this might seem to be equivalent to "certain" or even "unquestionable", but that's not so.  Many, many things once considered "facts" (because most everyone agreed they were true) have turned out not to be true.  So, certain statements may appear certain today, but by tomorrow they might have entered the realm of uncertainty or even that of things known to be untrue.  Just where on your scale this might go is an open question, and you might even think it doesn't belong there at all.  I won't be offended.   --  JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You could add the legal expressions: "On the balance of probability" and "Beyond reasonable doubt", but I could not assign a precise percentage probability to many of the terms for degrees of certainty and doubt. Different people use them in different ways, and even vary their definition according to the context and their feelings at the time!  ''  d b f  i  r  s   09:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a thought ... and a curiosity, on my part. If this gradation list is fraught with such fuzzy definitions, ultimately how will it be of any practical use to you at all in your project?  That would need some consideration, I'd think.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Furthermore, your current proposed list looks like this:
 * unknown
 * unremembered (?)
 * unsure
 * possible
 * probable
 * likely
 * certain
 * unquestionable


 * ... which can just as easily add / incorporate the following gradations:
 * known
 * remembered (?)
 * sure
 * impossible
 * improbable
 * unlikely
 * uncertain
 * questionable


 * My point being ... all of these words may ultimately be pretty useless and impractical. And meaningless to communicate any real substance to the reader.  I'd prefer "a scale of 0 to 10" (or whatever) where "0" is absolutely not knowing/remembering ... and "10" is absolute perfect recall (or whatever).   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * A scale already exists, of course. It is called probability and can be given as a decimal between 0 and 1, or, perhaps more clearly, as a percentage, where 100% is absolute certainty, and 0% represents absolute impossibility.  Gambler's odds can easily be converted to this scale, for example: 3 to 1 against means a probability of 25% (with three times this i.e. 75% that the result will not happen).  ''  d b f  i  r  s   01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No! No! No! You are mixing apples with oranges, completely!  The probability (0% to 100%) is in no way related to the certainty (scale of 0 to 10 or, similarly, 0% to 100%) with which I can recall an event.  If I am asked, "Do you remember what day of the week was March 8, 1962?" ... my answer could be "I think it was a Tuesday with a degree of certainty of perhaps 3."  In no way does that mean that March 8, 1962 had a 30% chance of being on a Tuesday.  It was, in fact, a Thursday.  So, there is a 100% "chance" that it was a Thursday and a 0% "chance" that it was any other day of the week ... regardless of how certain or uncertain I am about what day it was.  The concept of probability in this particular discussion is wholly inapplicable.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))


 * As a matter of fact, the original poster was studying the concept of memory. Clearly, one's memory of an event is a whole different concept of the event itself.  Its very definition ("memory") is how well (or not) we remember or recall the event in question ... not whether (or not) the event in question happened and with what probability it did so.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC))